marcustullius

Conservatives suck and I'll be voting NDP, not that it matters since I live on the prairies http://www.foreverfourth.ca/ http://whynotharper.ca/#printablelist

Guys, a person who has caused harm to thousands of people died today and you can't see how some people would get emotional and react the way they are? Let people get it out, then talk about what it means/significance/whatever you want later.

Guys chill, a person who millions of people hated is dead. Was it worth it in the end? Who cares for now, let the people celebrate and see what's next.

Abject poverty. And commoner (upon a google) does in fact mean anyone who isn't royalty, basically. Commoners can be wealthy

Well there you go then

Wrong. Thee is no legal requirement for business' to give employees the day off or to stop trading. They themselves are allowed to choose whether to let their employees have the day off, watch the wedding or have a normal day of trading. and I know for a fact that the majority of businesses are. A lot of trade is going to be needlessly lost. Can you quote me the statistics of this fact? From my own knowledge (Of working myself and having two parents and a brother who work) 3/4 of business's are actually staying open. My Mum would probably be at work as well if she didn't already have Fridays off. I know of very few business' which are closing. Granted, many schools and universities are closing for the day, but that doesn't harm the economy to a large extent, and may even be beneficial due to many children pumping money in during the day. Not counting the money the major TV companies are getting for broadcasting around the world as well as the many tourists coming in for the day, as well as the numerous souvenirs sold by most shops, there has been a very large boost to the economy. sorry, you totally mis understood - I'm not denying that money will be brought into the economy via the wedding - it will, and probably more so than usual - but we'd still make more if all business continued as normal. I don't see why anything has to stop for it. So what is the point of statutory holidays then?

FYI, they actually make the country money, they don't cost it money

No one is going to fight for weed.

Aren't opioids still used for chronic pain? (Side note: The history of Canada banning opium is pretty interesting)l Carcinogens are produced when you burn pretty much any organic material. The biggest draw to marijuana, I think, is that it has extremely mild potential side-effects compared to prescription drugs. That and for some people it really is a god send. The method of taking it I'm not too knowledgeable on. Smoking it has the advantage of entering the bloodstream directly from the lungs, which means the effects kick in a lot faster. Vaporizers from what I know are a pretty great alternative. But a question: if smoking works best for someone, and they are aware of the dangers or smoking, why should we deny them smoking it? Also, there is a synthetic cannabinoid. It's called Marinol. It's inferior to marijuana though. You seem to have some sort of stereotype of people who smoke, smoke for medicinal reasons, and advocate the legalization of marijuana as pot heads or something. This is simply not true. Marijuana is proven to have medical uses, and I have only so much as seen marijuana twice, never smoked it (probably never will). But yes, there are people who self-diagnose and take it when they don't need it, but this topic isn't about those people.

Their positions shouldn't be reversed, but if alcohol is legal then why shouldn't marijuana (which is much, much less dangerous)? Because they can't control it completely? e: Actually, a common figure is about 1/3 your bodyweight in pounds, other figures vary all the way up to 1,500 pounds in 15 minutes. Of course, it's hard to determine a lethal dose when no one has ever died from ODing on it. Also I found this pretty interesting tid bit from DEA Judge Young's Ruling on Medical Marijuana: There's more, but those are the most poignant I think

I question the same thing. In terms of power. No. There are lots of drugs more powerful. However many leave the person unable to function, as in drive cars and such. Don't get me wrong. I don't want people driving marijuana driving cars. However they are more functional Than somebody on prescription pain killers. But honestly I don't see how it is particularly more effective than just high dosages of over the counter pain killers. See my earlier post:

Haha this part was good But if that girl really does have depression and marijuana helps her, then all power to her.

Any news on their plan to appeal the decision yet?

How can you deny that marijuana has medical uses? I mean hell, there are synthetic forms of it that are sold by pharmaceutical companies. Kind of low of you to think that people who suffer pain are using it as an excuse to get weed and don't try to get legal pain killers cause they need their weed. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people using weed for medicinal purposes never tried it before they needed it I agree with that (except maybe with your last sentence), but I have a feeling we might have misinterpreted what he said. Doesn't sound like him. Ah, my fault. I should have clarified what the medicinal marijuana argument i was referring to was. It's the idea that it's okay to use it as some kind of self-prescription to treat pain (usually also self-diagnosed), as opposed to going to the doctor. I've seen people do this, and I don't like that. I have no problem with the use of it or its derivatives for the purpose of treating pain (or any treatment for anything for that matter) so long as it has gone through the proper scientific processes and prescribed by a qualified doctor appropriately. I just want people to be honest with themselves here. If you're using it recreationally, be truthful about it if you want to talk about it. If you're using it to treat a medical condition, you should have been diagnosed by a qualified doctor and had it prescribed to you, and there must not be a better method available to treat your condition. Mixing the two, lying about medical conditions to get free/cheap/legal marijuana, is the real crime here. I can agree with that

Pain killing is kind of a big deal. It's got use as an anti-nausea med for people getting chemo, nausea and appetite loss in AIDs patients, reducing intra-ocular pressure (glaucoma), anxiety reduction are some. The Institute of Medicine did a pretty good study/report: http://search.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309071550 However, they're conclusion is pretty much dead on unfortunately, and why I am not confident that we'll see it legalized any time soon Marijuana wouldn't be useful as a main drug to treat the disease, it would be used to suppress symptoms of the disease/condition.

I've always been a straight A's and B's student and got a scholarship toward my first year at university, tests don't mean [bleep].

How can you deny that marijuana has medical uses? I mean hell, there are synthetic forms of it that are sold by pharmaceutical companies. Kind of low of you to think that people who suffer pain are using it as an excuse to get weed and don't try to get legal pain killers cause they need their weed. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people using weed for medicinal purposes never tried it before they needed it

Standardized tests are great for seeing how good students are at standardized tests

Then I ask again: how do you keep track of how well a teacher teaches in comparison to their coworkers? And keep in mind that there are lots of variables that can go into how well a teacher teaches, one of the most prominent is probably the student to teacher ratio. In my city/area, that ratio has definitely been going up

I've never found any use for textbooks aside from assignments that the teachers made us use them for. This is including university

Right there is where I'm sold. Jail should be reserved to people who are an actual threat to the public, whether it be for violence, sexual assault, theft, etc. I don't see how sitting in your own home, minding your own business smoking some pot deserves to get you in the big house for a few months/years with people who actually are a threat. It wastes tons of resources and most of these people are completely harmless. Another pro is that legalization would eradicate the underground thug market of marijuana trafficking that thrives off of these types of laws. Also, I noticed you're arguing that it would inevitably become a house-hold drug. Lol, isn't it already? I remember hearing somewhere that legalization really doesn't have much of an effect on the amount of usage. It makes sense too. There are far more people smoking now than when it was legal. Also, drug lords know how to make sure their customers' demands are supplied. And about the detrimental effects on one's motor skills after prolonged use... uhhh... then how am I the best Halo player in the world? I think most people forget that jail is supposed to be for the ones who are a danger to society, not just anyone who breaks a criminal law. And tied in with this, getting arrest, charged, sent to prison/probation/whatever is going to mean they now have a criminal record. Is it really justified to give people a criminal record that will make it even harder to get a job for smoking a plant? Victimless crime. Although I'm not sure how much of a threat weed dealers are. I know that the gangs in my city try not to deal weed because customers will rat them out more willingly since there are so many dealers. They prefer the harder to get stuff like heroin

Couldn't they just take a fraction of the military budget and use it for funding education?

I'm going to not respond to your weed is a gateway/slippery slope type part, but this part I will. You are greatly exaggerating how many kids drink. Like, by a lot. And the legalize campaign for the most part includes regulation.

Absolutely, I'm not arguing against regulation.

[garden tool] boy, a "think of the children!" post. Thanks for actually posting some content though e: You can't say [garden tool] on this site? What? Care to actually debunk his points? Not going to win any arguments with insults... No, I don't because of the part I quoted. It'll just result in running in circles. It wasn't an insult, his post WAS a "think of the children!" post. It's parents responsibility to monitor their kids, there are a hell of a lot worse things kids could do than smoke a little weed.